Animal sacrifice is ritualistic behaviour and is clearly what I have a disagreement with. c-mon you can do better than that.

So you agree then that not all teachings have the same core then? I mean you just admitted that you disagree with ritualistic behaviour. Okay, the animal sacrifice thing can be considered an extreme of ritual but now you are saying you disagree with ritual per se as a method. More lies and hypocrisy? Or maybe you just don't know what you agree or disagree with?

Animal sacrifice is ritualistic behaviour and is clearly what I have a disagreement with. c-mon you can do better than that.

So you agree then that not all teachings have the same core then? I mean you just admitted that you disagree with ritualistic behaviour. Okay, the animal sacrifice thing can be considered an extreme of ritual but now you are saying you disagree with ritual per se as a method. More lies and hypocrisy? Or maybe you just don't know what you agree or disagree with?

I stake my money on the second option.

All enlightened teachings have the same core, they are universal, and they are free from ritualistic behaviours. Rites and ritualualistic behaviours can not produce liberative experiencial wisdom.

Please refrain from the personal attacks Greg TOS and all. Calling someone a liar and immoral fits my definition of a personal attack. And you promised me in the harsh speech thread that you would not use harsh speech towards me again.

Animal sacrifice is ritualistic behaviour and is clearly what I have a disagreement with. c-mon you can do better than that.

So you agree then that not all teachings have the same core then? I mean you just admitted that you disagree with ritualistic behaviour. Okay, the animal sacrifice thing can be considered an extreme of ritual but now you are saying you disagree with ritual per se as a method. More lies and hypocrisy? Or maybe you just don't know what you agree or disagree with?

I stake my money on the second option.

All enlightened teachings have the same core, they are universal, and they are free from ritualistic behaviours. Rites and ritualualistic behaviours can not produce liberative experiencial wisdom.

Please refrain from the personal attacks Greg TOS and all. Calling someone a liar and immoral fits my definition of a personal attack. And you promised me in the harsh speech thread that you would not use harsh speech towards me again.

The only way to transcend ritual is participate in it. the only way to find the emptiness of inherent existence is to examine existence.

A neurotic aversion to ritual is itself, a very deep-deated kind of clinging that attempts to create a perfect, samsara-free self, but it actuality it is just pulling something back and forth through dualistic views..the point is to lose the duality, whatever method you choose. For some elaborate ritual is the way, for others it's more spartan, in either case though in order to lead the bull around you require some kind of tools. It really doesn't matter whether your tools are mantra, Vipassana, just sitting, whatever, on some level it's all ritual until it isn't anymore.

PS : A Vipassana retreat or practice is every bit as much a ritual as a deity puja, and i'm not sure why anyone would entertain any idea to the contrary, it's pretty obvious.

ground wrote:Even though it is a hungry ghost phenomenon religious belief - regardless of what religion it is, buddhism, christianity, islam, etc. - may entail a life of contentment, confidence, peace and happiness if belief is continuously cultivated.

That applies to any belief, even to the belief that you have. That is, the belief that what you say is actually relevant.

1) "hungry ghost phenomenon" refers to belief in a kind of future, and striving for and wanting to have or achieve or become with reference to that "not yet present". That is not necessarily concomitant to any kind of belief but it is concomitant to religious belief. Therefore it does not apply to any kind of belief.2) Even though there may be a belief contentment, confidence, peace and happiness may depend on this belief or may be independent of it.3) Since words are expression of mere conditioned ideas there may be that awareness. In that case a belief in the context of seeing belief as what it is and religious belief may have different qualities.

Belief is belief, whether it be religious, political, secular, scientific, et al. It is just a view. A personal opinion that may or may not be shared by others. The value (or lack of value) of a belief is imputed not inherent. Thus at a relative level a belief (religious or otherwise) may have or not have a value (depending on how the individual views it) and all beliefs are by their nature empty of inherent value/lack of value.

Your beliefs, my beliefs, lowlydogs beliefs... All beliefs. But since we have not transcended the relative then all we can do is make value judgements: eg Vipassana is right, ritual is wrong (not right). Vipassana is right, ritual is right. Vipassana is wrong (something that nobody here has said) ritual is right. Vipassana is wrong, ritual is wrong. And the wheel of samsara continues spinning round and round.

Jikan wrote:Depends on the context and the intention of the practitioners involved. Could be mere rote ritual. Could be upaya.

I see what you mean. Whether it is tool for awakening or it conditions us.

Then this question is probably senseless: Is "awaken nature/Buddha" avoiding technic-means which can help " the variety of beings" to realize what they are, to take the causes of suffering away? I suppose awaken Masters clearly discern what conditions and what not.

Jikan wrote:Depends on the context and the intention of the practitioners involved. Could be mere rote ritual. Could be upaya.

I see what you mean. Whether it is tool for awakening or it conditions us.

Then this question is probably senseless: Is "awaken nature/Buddha" avoiding technic-means which can help " the variety of beings" to realize what they are, to take the causes of suffering away? I suppose awaken Masters clearly discern what conditions and what not.

Interesting question. I don't know how to answer it. I do think there's some sense to the other side of the question though:

is it possible to awaken without any means at all? even seated meditation is a means.

This is why I keep saying to lowlydog: The practice you've learned from your teacher is an excellent one. Practice it with all your heart and all beings will benefit, starting with you. Don't waste time worrying about what others are up to when you already have a method to work with.

Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

Jikan wrote: The practice you've learned from your teacher is an excellent one. Practice it with all your heart and all beings will benefit, starting with you. Don't waste time worrying about what others are up to when you already have a method to work with.

The genuine Teachers know how to help. Discernment is by wisdom, and so not by opinions.

gregkavarnos wrote:Belief is belief, whether it be religious, political, secular, scientific, et al. It is just a view. A personal opinion that may or may not be shared by others. The value (or lack of value) of a belief is imputed not inherent. Thus at a relative level a belief (religious or otherwise) may have or not have a value (depending on how the individual views it) and all beliefs are by their nature empty of inherent value/lack of value.

Your beliefs, my beliefs, lowlydogs beliefs... All beliefs. But since we have not transcended the relative then all we can do is make value judgements: eg Vipassana is right, ritual is wrong (not right). Vipassana is right, ritual is right. Vipassana is wrong (something that nobody here has said) ritual is right. Vipassana is wrong, ritual is wrong. And the wheel of samsara continues spinning round and round.

Belief may be belief. Belief is a term, a visible form without meaning. Seeing "belief" a variety of ideas may arise. So there may be dependence on conditions. Knowing the believed to be the dependently originated process of consciousness grasping itself, knowing that there is nothing beyond the mere process of believing that may be affirmed, knowing this belief still may be belief. What knows? And the known expressed still is just mere ideas. And there is nothing that may be affirmed beyond this mere idea of "knowing" and the idea of "the known".

lowlydog wrote:All enlightened teachings have the same core, they are universal, and they are free from ritualistic behaviours. Rites and ritualualistic behaviours can not produce liberative experiencial wisdom.

Just as an FYI, this is the kind of statement that's not going to gain you any respect. And, while I'm at it, you are absolutely wrong about this. Since we're making categorical statements.....

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

Belief may be belief. Belief is a term, a visible form without meaning. Seeing "belief" a variety of ideas may arise. So there may be dependence on conditions. Knowing the believed to be the dependently originated process of consciousness grasping itself, knowing that there is nothing beyond the mere process of believing that may be affirmed, knowing this belief still may be belief. What knows? And the known expressed still is just mere ideas. And there is nothing that may be affirmed beyond this mere idea of "knowing" and the idea of "the known".

The Buddha always explained things in clear and simple terms via the medium of conventional/relative truth, that was because he was enlightened. That's why he was known as a sage. When you speak from experience you are actually capable of lucid and intelligent statements (I personally have seen many instances), on the other hand, when you try to be profound (ie when it is not based on experience) you mainly post pseudo-mystical gibberish. The above statement belongs to the second category. Why? Because in trying to sound wise, in your closing statement, you actually contradcited the entire point you were trying to make.

Please keep it simple so us idiots can understand (and so you do not have to chew your own foot, unless, of course, you actually like the taste of your own foot).

gregkavarnos wrote:... Because in trying to sound wise, in your closing statement, you actually contradcited the entire point you were trying to make.

Where can this "trying to sound wise" and this "trying to make a point" be found? In the forms aka words, which are not the mere ideas that caused them or in the ideas that have arisen upon the eye contacting these forms aka "reading"?If former words entail affirmative feeling of "a point" then these may have not been appropriately chosen. Thank you for showing. If later words entail feeling that the formerly felt affirmed point is contradicted then these may have been chosen appropriately with reference to the former having been chosen inappropriately. Applying honest words that neither support nor evoke belief is difficult. Painting or playing music may be an alternative means of expression avoiding non intended side effects due to not appealing to the intellect in the first place.

gregkavarnos wrote:... Because in trying to sound wise, in your closing statement, you actually contradcited the entire point you were trying to make.

Where can this "trying to sound wise" and this "trying to make a point" be found? In the forms aka words, which are not the mere ideas that caused them or in the ideas that have arisen upon the eye contacting these forms aka "reading"?If former words entail affirmative feeling of "a point" then these may have not been appropriately chosen. Thank you for showing. If later words entail feeling that the formerly felt affirmed point is contradicted then these may have been chosen appropriately with reference to the former having been chosen inappropriately.

Pseudo-mystical gibberish. You're trying too hard again.

Applying honest words that neither support nor evoke belief is difficult. Painting or playing music may be an alternative means of expression avoiding non intended side effects due to not appealing to the intellect in the first place.

Lucid and intelligent! I almost agree too! You make one fatal mistake though, music and painting may not appeal to intellect (though much art and music does) but it still appeals to mind in order to express a view.

lowlydog wrote:All enlightened teachings have the same core, they are universal, and they are free from ritualistic behaviours. Rites and ritualualistic behaviours can not produce liberative experiencial wisdom.

Just as an FYI, this is the kind of statement that's not going to gain you any respect. And, while I'm at it, you are absolutely wrong about this. Since we're making categorical statements.....

My hypothesis is that the path is universal, any being who attaines liberation must practice morality, mastery of the mind, and posess experiential wisdom. In the theravaden tradition when the stage of sotapanna is reached clinging to rites and rituals is let go of. - Clinging to the view that one becomes pure simply through performing ritual or rigid moralism, such as relying in a god for non-causal deliverance, slaughtering animals for sacrifice, ablutions, etc. is eradicated because the Sotāpanna realizes that the excessive rites and ritual are nothing more than an obstructive tradition; Deliverance can be won only through the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path.

Now I started a thread when I first joined here and asked what is the fundamental difference between the teachings, and no one suggested that rituals were cause for liberation in the mahayana path.

Now understand that when I am talking of ritualistic behaviour I am talking about blind rituals, seated meditation could be seen as a ritual but we know what and why we are doing this(hopefully). If one makes their morning and evening meditation into a blind ritual, did my morning sit for one hour check, did my prosterations check, did my chanting check, burned my incense check, read my scriptures check, we will not make any progess on the path. If we question why am I to do this activity, what is the purpose of this activity , and we practice mindfully then we can make progress on the path. We should not do things without a general understanding of their purpose.

One minute you say that : "the Sotāpanna realizes that the excessive rites and ritual are nothing more than an obstructive tradition" and then you say that it is not rites and ritulas that are the problem but the mindset of the practitioner engaging in the rites and rituals??? : " If we question why am I to do this activity, what is the purpose of this activity , and we practice mindfully then we can make progress on the path."

So which of the two is it? Do you believe that rites and rituals must be "forsaken" in order for progress to occur, or is it the mindset that determines if progress will occur?

lowlydog wrote:Now understand that when I am talking of ritualistic behaviour I am talking about blind rituals, seated meditation could be seen as a ritual but we know what and why we are doing this(hopefully). If one makes their morning and evening meditation into a blind ritual, did my morning sit for one hour check, did my prosterations check, did my chanting check, burned my incense check, read my scriptures check, we will not make any progess on the path. If we question why am I to do this activity, what is the purpose of this activity , and we practice mindfully then we can make progress on the path. We should not do things without a general understanding of their purpose.

Well, okay...but how do you know whether someone is engaged in blind rituals, or whether their ritual activity is deeply embued with some deep, internal, sense of purpose and awareness? Can you tell?

Do you think it's a good idea to condemn such practices out of hand, as you have seemingly done earlier in this thread, or perhaps do you think a more nuanced response to the issue of "ritual" behavior may be appropriate?

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

gregkavarnos wrote:One minute you say that : "the Sotāpanna realizes that the excessive rites and ritual are nothing more than an obstructive tradition" and then you say that it is not rites and ritulas that are the problem but the mindset of the practitioner engaging in the rites and rituals??? : " If we question why am I to do this activity, what is the purpose of this activity , and we practice mindfully then we can make progress on the path."

So which of the two is it? Do you believe that rites and rituals must be "forsaken" in order for progress to occur, or is it the mindset that determines if progress will occur?

Some rituals if practiced as intended can help develope concentration, but concentration will not liberate, one must then direct awareness towards the mind/matter phenomenon for insights to arise. Insight is liberative. One could do 100,000 prosterations with blind faith and be no further along the path. Or one may fully experience one breath and experience total liberation.